Effect of biopesticides against stem borer (Lophobaris piperis) and Thrips sp. on pepper (Piper nigrum)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
E3S Web of Conferences 306, 01022 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130601022
1st ICADAI 2021
Effect of biopesticides against stem borer
(Lophobaris piperis) and Thrips sp. on pepper
(Piper nigrum)
Agus Kardinan, and Paramita Maris *
Indonesian Spice and Medicinal Crops Research Institute, Indonesian Agency for Agricultural
Research and Development, Jalan Tentara Pelajar No. 3, Cimanggu, Bogor 16111, West Java,
Indonesia
Abstract. One of the pepper crop production obstacles is the presence of
pests. Several pests that often attack pepper plants in the Sukamulya
Experimental Station is pepper stem borer (Lophobaris piperis) and Thrips
sp. We studied the effect of biopesticides of botanical pesticides and
biological pesticides at the Sukamulya Experimental Station, Sukabumi –
West Java in 2020 against the pepper stem borer L. piperis and Thrips sp.
in pepper plantation. The research was designed in a randomized block
with three treatments, namely (1) botanical pesticides, (2) biological
pesticides and (3) control (water), and nine replications. The treatment
application is carried out once a month, done immediately after observing
the intensity of the pest attack. The results showed that the attack of pepper
stem borer was low (below 10%), so the effect of the treatment could not
be seen significantly. The Thrips attack was high enough, it was seen that
there was the ability of botanical pesticides to reduce the intensity of the
attack. Meanwhile, the biological pesticide had not yet shown its ability to
reduce the intensity of Thrips sp.
1 Introduction
The problems faced by pepper farming in Indonesia are low productivity of pepper (less
than 1 ton/ha), significant yield losses due to pests and diseases, and uncertain income due
to fluctuation pepper prices [1,2]. The pests that often attack pepper plants in the
traditionally pepper producing areas in Indonesia is stem borer (L. piperis) and Thrips sp.
To control those pests, synthetic insecticides are usually used. But their continuous use
causes environmental pollution and pest resistance: hence it is necessary to find out other
eco-friendly technologies that are effective in controlling pests in pepper plants. One of
which is using biopesticides such as B. bassiana and botanical pesticides derived from
plants such as neem (Azadirachta indica), citronella grass (Cymbopogon nardus) or cloves
(Syzygium aromaticum) [3,4].
B. bassiana is an entomopathogenic fungus that can be widely used as a biological
control for plant pests. Recorded more than a hundred species of insects that can be infected
* Corresponding author: paramitamaris@yahoo.com
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).E3S Web of Conferences 306, 01022 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130601022
1st ICADAI 2021
with this fungus [5]. This fungus grows naturally in the soil and is accordingly used for
biological control for soil dwelling insect pests [6]. Beauveria (Moniliales; Moniliaeceae)
has been reported to produce secondary metabolites such as bassianin, bassiacridin,
beauvericin, bassianolide, beauverolides, tenellin and oosporein, which can paralyze and
cause insect death [7,8]. Insects infected with B. bassiana are characterized on the insect's
body covered in white hyphae, and the insect's squashed body hardens or mummies. B.
bassiana can reduce Locusta migratoria, Helopeltis antonii, and Diconocoris Hewetti
[6,9,10].
Botanical pesticides use their secondary metabolites products as their active
ingredients. This compound functions as a repellent, attractant, and poison, as well as an
antifeedant [11]. Some examples of plant secondary metabolites products are eugenol,
citronellal, and azadirachtin [12]. Citronellal contained in citronella oil (Andropogon
nardus), eugenol compounds contained in clove oil (S. aromaticum L.), and Azadirachtin
compounds from the neem plant, (A. indica A. Juss.) are reported effective in controlling
several types of pests in several ways [13,14,15]. The objective of the study was to
determine the potential of biopesticides (botanical pesticides and biological pesticides) in
controlling L. piperis and Thrips sp.
2 Materials and methods
The research was conducted at the Sukamulya Experimental Station, Sukabumi – West
Java, in 2020 against the pepper stem borer L. piperis and Thrips sp. in three years old
pepper plants. The research was designed in a randomized block design with 3 treatments,
namely (1) botanical pesticides (a mixture of neem oil: citronella oil: clove oil) with the
ratio of 1: 1: 1; (2) biological pesticides from B. bassiana and (3) control (water) and nine
replications. B. bassiana, first being propagated or grown on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA)
medium, then on corn medium for about two weeks [16,17]. Meanwhile, the botanical
pesticide formulation is carried out by mixing neem oil, citronella essential oil, clove
essential oil in the ratio of 1: 1: 1 and was added with 2% emulsifier (Tween 80), in order to
be a water soluble solution. The observations were carried out every month from April to
August 2020. The biopesticides were also applied once a month immediately after
observing the intensity of the pest attack. The attack intensity of L. piperis was done by
calculating the estimated number of stems attacked compared to the total stem of the plant.
Meanwhile, for Thrips sp., the attack intensity was done by calculating the estimated
number of curled leaves compared to the total leaves of the plant. The concentration of
botanical pesticides is 5 cc/liter, while the biological pesticides concentration is 20 gr/liter.
Attack intensity is calculated based on scoring:
I = Ʃ {n x v} x 100 % (1)
NxV
I = intensity of attack;
n = number of plants included in a particular symptom score;
v = value of certain symptoms;
N = number of plants observed;
V = highest attack value)
Scoring of attack is categorized as: 0 (no attack); 1 (1 - 15%); 2 (16 - 30 %); 3 (31 - 45%);
4 (46 - 60%); 5 (61 - 75%); 6 (76 - 90%); 7 (> 90%).
2
2E3S Web of Conferences 306, 01022 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130601022
1st ICADAI 2021
3 Result and discussion
Before applying the treatment, preliminary observations were made on the intensity of pest
attacks on all experimental plots, both stem borer and Thrips. The results showed that the
intensity of the attacks was relatively uniform and did not differ significantly among the
experimental plots.
3.1 Intensity of Stem Borer attack
At the beginning of the observation, from April to July, there was a tendency that the
pepper stem borer attack intensity in the control treatment was higher compared to the
biological pesticide treatment. Still, it did not show significantly different results. However,
in August, it was seen that the intensity of the pepper stem borer attack decreased so that
the effect of the treatment still not visible significantly (Table 1).
Table 1. The intensity of pepper stem borer attack
Attack Intensity (%)
Treatments
April May June July August
Botanical pesticide (5 cc/lt water) 1.6 a 2.0 a 1.6 a 1.2 a 0.4 a
Bioverin (20 gram/lt water) 2.8 a 2.8 a 2.8 a 2.0 a 1.2 a
Control (water) 4.0 a 6.8 a 6.0 a 6.4 a 2.0 a
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same column are not significantly different at 5%
DMRT
The results showed that the attack of pepper stem borer at the time of the study was low
(below 10%), so the effect of the treatment could not be seen significantly. There was an
increase in the attack of pepper stem borer on the control treatment plot from April to July,
but it still did not make a significant difference when compared to the biopesticide
treatment. This probably happened because the frequency of biopesticide treatment was
only done once a month.
3.2 The intensity of Thrips attack
The intensity of Thrips attack was seen to be relatively high and increased from time to
time. In the control treatment intensity of Thrips attack in April was 11.2% in April, and
reached 39.7% in August (Table 2). The damage to the plants is visible, with leaf margins
roll upward bend on both sides.
Table 2. The intensity of Thrips attack
Attack Intensity (%)
Treatments
April May June July August
Botanical pesticide (5 cc/lt water) 6.4 a 13.9 a 16.7 a 28.1 a 25.3 a
Bioverin (20 gram/lt water) 6.4 a 13.1 a 18.3 a 30.5 a 33.1 ab
Control (water) 11.2 a 17.4 a 21.4 a 36.5 a 39.7 b
Note: numbers followed by the same letter at the same column are not significantly different at 5%
DMRT
The result showed that there was the ability of a botanical pesticide to reduce the
intensity of the attack, but biological pesticides had not yet shown its ability to reduce the
intensity of Thrips sp. However, if we observed the results from April to July, there was an
increase in the attack of Thrips on the control treatment plot, however it still did not make a
significant difference compared to the biopesticide treatment. Even though it took five
3
3E3S Web of Conferences 306, 01022 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130601022
1st ICADAI 2021
months of observation to show that biopesticides, especially the botanical pesticide, have
the potential to control the Thrips. This data quite compatible with other research that stated
neem, as one of the main ingredients of the botanical pesticide, can be a good alternative to
synthetic insecticides to control Thrips in several crops like mango [18], cotton [19],
cardamom [20], cowpea [21], and pummelo [22]. All three of the botanical pesticide
ingredients (neem oil, citronella oil, and clove oil) are also stated by other research as
potential biopesticides to control Spodoptera frugiperda [23] and fly species [24]. So, this
data shows that botanical pesticides has the potential to control the pest quite well.
Overall, although most of the results did not significantly point out the effect, they did
show the potential of the biopesticides to control the pepper stem borer and the Thrips. This
probably happened because the frequency of biopesticide treatments was only done once a
month and was being done for only five months of observation. Meanwhile, biopesticides
need a longer time than synthetic pesticides to make a significant effect, especially in the
field. Increase in the number of biopesticides applications (twice a month) and the longer
time of observation (up to one year) are expected to give better visible results in further
research.
4 Conclusion and recommendation
The attack of pepper stem borer (L. piperis) at the time the research was conducted was low
(below 10%), so the effect of biopesticide could not be seen significantly. But the botanical
pesticide effect for Thrips sp. can be seen more clearly. From the data, it can be seen that
botanical pesticide has the potential to control Thrips sp. To get more clearer and
significant data, it can be done by increasing the number of biopesticides applications
(twice a month) and the time of observation (up to one year).
Acknowledgements. Thank you and much appreciation to Tri Eko Wahyono, Nurbeti Tarigan, and
Galih Perkasa, who have assisted the research from preparation, observation to completion.
References
1. D. Soetopo, Pengemb. Inov. Pertan. 5, 1 (2012)
2. R. Rosman, Perspektif. 15, 1 (2016)
3. P. Acharya, S.A. Mir, B. Nayak, Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 2, 6 (2017)
4. Rohimatun, I.W. Laba, Bul. Littro. 24, 1 (2013)
5. M.G. Feng, T.J. Poprawski, G.G. Khachatourians, Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 4, 1 (1994)
6. C. Keswani, S.P. Singh, H.B. Singh, Biotech Today. 3, 1 (2013)
7. H. Strasser, A. Vey, T.M. Butt, Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 10, 717 (2000)
8. E. Quesada-Moraga, A. Vey, Mycol. Res. 108, 4 (2004)
9. I.M. Trisawa, I.W. Laba, Bul. Littro. 17, 2 (2006)
10. S.H. Anggarawati, T. Santoso, R. Anwar, J. Silvikultur Trop. 8, 3 (2017)
11. J. Dougoud, S. Toepfer, M. Bateman, W. H. Jenner, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 37
(2019)
12. O. Pino, Y. Sanchez, M.M. Rojas, Rev. Proteccion Veg. 28, 2 (2013)
13. S.H. Ho, L.P.L. Cheng, K.Y. Sim, H.T.W. Tan, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 4, 179
(1994)
14. S.S. Nathan, K. Kalaivani, K. Sehoon, K. Murugan, Chemospere. 62, 1381 (2006)
15. W. Thorsell, A. Mikiver, H. Tunon, Phytomedicine. 13, 132 (2006)
16. A. Rosmiati, C. Hidayat, E. Firmansyah, Y. Setiati, J. Agrik. 29, 43 (2018)
17. S.V. Agale, S. Gopalakrishnan, K.G. Ambhure, H. Chandravanshi, R. Gupta, S.P.
Wani, Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 7, 2227 (2018)
4
4E3S Web of Conferences 306, 01022 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130601022
1st ICADAI 2021
18. H. Aliakbarpour, M.R.C. Salmah, O. Dzolkhifli, J. Pest Sci. 84, 503 (2011)
19. M.U. Asif, R. Muhammad, W. Akbar, M. Sohail, J.A. Tariq, M. Ismail, J. Entomol.
Zool. Stud. 6, 3 (2018)
20. J. Stanley, G. Preetha, S. Chandrasekaran, K. Gunasekaran, S. Kuttalam, Psyche.
930584, 7 (2014)
21. B.B. Raoul, N. Albert, T. Manuele, N.E. Nchiwan, J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 7, 5 (2019)
22. T. Thongjua, J. Thongjua, Int. J. Agric. Technol. 14, 7 (2018)
23. D. Dono, Y. Hidayat, T. Suganda, S. Hidayat, N.S. Widayani, J. Crop. 3, 1 (2020)
24. A. T. Showler, J. Integr. Pest Manag. 8, 1 (2017)
5
5You can also read
